Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;904421]Then it's the rule that allowed him to shoot someone that's wrong and that should be changed.

Just for clarity, I am not taking into account Zimmerman's judgment, mkay?[/quote]

I agree with you on that. Or at least it needs to be modified so that there's some clarity on what accounts as "self defense". I mean it shouldn't be to the point of where the person has a knife to your throat to shoot them, but it also shouldn't be like, a bar fight scenario where its just 2 idiots brawling.

Hell, the whole rule should probably be done away with.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;904423]
Hell, the whole rule should probably be done away with.[/quote]

I'd like to see how the law has been applied since its inception and see if it has created a 'Wild-West'. It would be tough to prove but like CCW it creates a more well-behaved populace as people aren't so sure who to eff with.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;904423][B]I agree with you on that. Or at least it needs to be modified so that there's some clarity on what accounts as "self defense". [/B]I mean it shouldn't be to the point of where the person has a knife to your throat to shoot them, but it also shouldn't be like, a bar fight scenario where its just 2 idiots brawling.

Hell, the whole rule should probably be done away with.[/quote]

thats the biggest thing that can come away from this case. i feel like me and you are in the same boat in realizing that by the rule of the law zimmerman is probably not guilty, but we would both love to see him serve over a decade in prison. i am all for the right to bear arms and myself own 3 hand guns a rifle and a shotgun, and hate when jackasses like this give reasonable gun owners a bad name. laws like stand your ground make me cringe because of things like this. when i was in military police training we spent a ton of time on the use of force continum.

[quote]Use of force continuum

Main article: Use of force continuum

The use of force may be standardized by a use of force continuum, which presents guidelines as to the degree of force appropriate in a given situation. One source identifies five very generalized steps, increasing from least use of force to greatest. It is only one side of the model, as it does not give the levels of subject resistance that merit the corresponding increases in force.[7] Each successive level of force is meant to describe an escalating series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation, and the level of force used rises only when a lower level of force would be ineffective in dealing with the situation.[4]
1.Presence (using the effect of the presence of an authority figure on a subject)
2.Verbalization (commanding a subject)
3.Empty hand control (using empty hands to search, relieve weapons, immobilize, or otherwise control a subject)
4.Intermediate weapons (using non-lethal chemical, electronic or impact weapons on a subject)
5.Deadly Force (using any force likely to cause permanent injury or death to a subject)

Use of force continuums can be further broken down into much more specific and concrete units.
[/quote]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force]Use of force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;904241][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]A dispatcher, who happened to be a police officer, said "We dont need you to do that" in regards to Zimmerman indicating that he was following Martin. Thats a little different than a police officer telling Zimmerman not to pursue.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/"]Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin « Phoebe's Detention Room[/URL][/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I dont think Zimmerman had any idea that the dispatcher was a police officer. Also i think i heard FL law (maybe federal) says you dont have to adhere to anything your told over the phone from a police officer, 911 dispatcher, or anyone else. Its all advice, nothing official. Perhaps thats why the dispatcher said "we dont need you to do that" as opposed a command like "do not do that". Regardless, it seems by all accounts Zimmerman stopped following Martin at the advice of the dispatcher. Unfortunately the media usually ends the recording prematurely and makes it sounds like Zimmerman kept going after Martin. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]The trouble i have in siding with Zimmerman is that he got out of his truck and followed Martin in the first place, when there was no reason to believe Martin had yet committed a crime, and more specifically a crime against Zimmerman or his family.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I was a victim of violent crime and one surprising thing i learned is that preceding separate acts cant be used against you. The example is if you see someone driving recklessly, then they leave your sights, and moments later you see that car involved in an accident, your previous account of them driving recklessly cant be used against them. The thought is you have no idea if they stopped speeding or driving recklessly immediately before the accident. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]So they law may see what happened as 2 separate acts. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1) Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin. At this point if he had encountered Martin and the result was the same, I fully believe Zimmerman would be guilty of manslaughter at a very minimum and deserves to spend time in jail. But he didn’t encounter Martin at this point and more importantly when told to stop he stopped. And he stopped long enough to give the dispatcher his information so that police could assist him. And according to Zimmerman he retreated to his suv. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Then:[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2) Zimmerman was walking to his SUV and was confronted by Martin from behind and after they exchanged words Martin punched Zimmerman in the face breaking his noise and took him the ground and was slamming his head against the sidewalk. In the struggle and while under an reasonable impression that Martin had a gun or weaon he shot Martin in the chest. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]So I think what people need to consider is; was Zimmerman acting in self defense specifically in the context of JUST the 2nd scenario. Sure I personally feel, like most of you probably do, that if not for Zimmerman getting out of his suv Martin would be alive, therefore Zimmerman was in the wrong and provoked the actions of Martin. But as wrong as Zimmerman was to get out of his car, he did stop and retreated at which point Zimmerman would be justified more so to defend himself when attacked. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]* This is based off of Zimmerman’s accounts which obviously may be false. But it does match up with his injuries and the accounts of some witnesses. Im just going off of reported information. Also this is my understanding of law, which makes it completely worthless….[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Something else that I think will be a legal issue is the girlfriend’s account on the phone. It gets into that whole hearsay issue. I learned that you generally (its tricky) cant reveal something someone told you. So if a witness called 911 because her husband told her to because one guy just shot another guy outside, she cant say that. There may be precedent to phone conversation, but the girlfriend may only be limited to describing what she heard but not what was said. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Also the gated community thing might complicated things further. I believe it becomes a little fuzzy about what is/isn’t considered his homestead. That combined with the knowledge he likely picked up as a neighborhood watchman of who does/doesn’t live within the restricted community and their common visitors may give him more rights in approaching a visitor of the neighborhood. [/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

given all that i am just looking at the case from a far

1. you have a 17y/o kid leaving a convienence store and heading somewhere.

2. then you have a 29 y/o man who is a neighborhood watch activist who is armed with a gun start tailing the 17y/o.

3. at some point there is a physical struggle and the end result is the 17y/o being shot in the chest.

anyway you cut it up to [B]me[/B] thats murder. the enitre incident was incited by the 29y/o, and an inccocent 17y/o kid is dead. may the kid have been a gang banger maybe. could he just be a young kid trying to be a thug on the internet maybe. i know sure as shit thats what my dumbass 18 y/o cousin does. i don't know what either of their back stories are and don't really care. a 17y/o unarmed kid was shot by a 29y/o armed man. but at the end of the day thats just my opinion and you and i both know how f-ed up the legal system is, even if the defendant is 100% guilty he could get away with. shame is in this case he probaly was within the rule of the law.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmdub130;904475]given all that i am just looking at the case from a far

1. you have a 17y/o kid leaving a convienence store and heading somewhere.

2. then you have a 29 y/o man who is a neighborhood watch activist who is armed with a gun start tailing the 17y/o.

3. at some point there is a physical struggle and the end result is the 17y/o being shot in the chest.

anyway you cut it up to [B]me[/B] thats murder. the enitre incident was incited by the 29y/o, and an inccocent 17y/o kid is dead. may the kid have been a gang banger maybe. could he just be a young kid trying to be a thug on the internet maybe. i know sure as shit thats what my dumbass 18 y/o cousin does. i don't know what either of their back stories are and don't really care. a 17y/o unarmed kid was shot by a 29y/o armed man. but at the end of the day thats just my opinion and you and i both know how f-ed up the legal system is, even if the defendant is 100% guilty he could get away with. shame is in this case he probaly was within the rule of the law.[/quote]


Yeah I've tried to go on both sides here but I'm starting to agree, it seems like this dude wanted to hurt Martin, maybe not kill him but IMO become the Neighborhood "Hero" and it went to far. He had absolutely no right to follow him, I don't care what he looks like and also if Martin started running away he was obviously scared, maybe he thought it was the cops or maybe he just felt threatened.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I've taken in everything i can on this case, and can't really handle anymore. The media wants to make it about nothing but race, and they insist on using a 4 year old photo of the victim for the sole purpose of trying to drub up sympathy and invoke strong feelings when otherwise there would be none. I hate that everything takes the race issue.

The evidence is beginning to stack against Martin, thats a fact. No matter how many times they say he was only 17 years old going up against a grown man, nobody seems to care that this 17 year old outweighed Zimmerman and was physically surperior to him. 9 times out of ten Zimmerman would get whooped by him.

Witnesses have seen Martin banging Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk. That's attempted murder there but nobody gives two rats asses because all they can fascinate on is the 4 year old photo of some poor innocent little baby.

There will never be a right or wrong here. I see wrongdoing on both Zimmerman & Martin's part.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmdub130;904475]given all that i am just looking at the case from a far

1. you have a 17y/o kid leaving a convienence store and heading somewhere.

2[B]. then you have a 29 y/o man who is a neighborhood watch activist who is armed with a gun start tailing the 17y/o. [/B]

3. at some point there is a physical struggle and the end result is the 17y/o being shot in the chest.

anyway you cut it up to [B]me[/B] thats murder. the enitre incident was incited by the 29y/o, and an inccocent 17y/o kid is dead. may the kid have been a gang banger maybe. could he just be a young kid trying to be a thug on the internet maybe. i know sure as shit thats what my dumbass 18 y/o cousin does. i don't know what either of their back stories are and don't really care. a 17y/o unarmed kid was shot by a 29y/o armed man. but at the end of the day thats just my opinion and you and i both know how f-ed up the legal system is, even if the defendant is 100% guilty he could get away with. shame is in this case he probaly was within the rule of the law.[/quote]

So now he is an activist?

[QUOTE=SolidSnake84;904495]I've taken in everything i can on this case, and can't really handle anymore. The media wants to make it about nothing but race, and they insist on using a 4 year old photo of the victim for the sole purpose of trying to drub up sympathy and invoke strong feelings when otherwise there would be none. I hate that everything takes the race issue.

The evidence is beginning to stack against Martin, thats a fact. No matter how many times they say he was only 17 years old going up against a grown man, nobody seems to care that this 17 year old outweighed Zimmerman and was physically surperior to him. 9 times out of ten Zimmerman would get whooped by him.

Witnesses have seen Martin banging Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk. That's attempted murder there but nobody gives two rats asses because all they can fascinate on is the 4 year old photo of some poor innocent little baby.

There will never be a right or wrong here. I see wrongdoing on both Zimmerman & Martin's part.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree w you but Zimmerman had no right chasing Martin and especially with a weapon.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

johnny stabbed and killed the soc in self defense, ponyboy was nearly drowned. but the socs were the aggressors in that scenario

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Just read something else. In Florida, apparently, the police cannot arrest someone who asserts a self-defense claim unless they can prove the claim is without basis. If they do arrest someone who asserts such a claim [I]and[/I] that claim is later upheld in court, the police will be responsible for civil penalties, lost wages and other damages.

In light of that, Zimmerman's assertion that T. Martin attacked him, combined with the lack of evidence showing Zimmerman started the physical altercation and Zimmerman's injuries, the failure to arrest Zimmerman is consistent with the laws in place.

[url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html]Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine[/url]

For those saying "Zimmerman should not have followed Martin after the dispatcher said it was unneccessary." Yup. Probably shouldn't have. However, while it may have been bad judgment, it was not illegal. Zimmerman had just as much right to walk (or run on) the public streets of his neighborhood as did Martin. [I live in a neighborhood that has had many break-ins and often observe young men walking down the street blatantly looking in car windows and testing car handles. I will go outside and follow them for a block or two and snap their picture on my phone to make sure they know people are watching. As long as I stay on public property, I am absolutely within my rights to do so].

It's a bad end with no real proof as to whether the use of deadly force was legally or illegally used. A tragedy all around with many lives unalterably ruined. It is not the first time such a thing has happened, and, unfortunately, it will not be the last.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;904497]So now he is an activist?[/quote]

I think you're just nitpicking here.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

^^ Maybe so. At the same time, it's little characterizations such as this that people have been throwing out since the beginning that appeal to feelings as opposed to facts. He's been characterized as a vigilante, a racist, a wannabe-hero. To me, all this is just stuff that gets in the way of analyzing the facts and is based off a lot of conjecture that's more spin than reality.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=los panda;904521]johnny stabbed and killed the soc in self defense, ponyboy was nearly drowned. but the socs were the aggressors in that scenario[/quote]

I havent seen the movie since 8th grade english class but diddnt johnny boy stright up murder at least one of socs?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mooby;904529]I think you're just nitpicking here.[/quote]

Mooby, it's all part of the incendiary and mood-setting language that's being used.

Use Occam's Razor, [I]lex parsimoniae[/I], see how the scenario looks when stripped of all the additional BS.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Didnt know this until this morning, Zimmerman has had 2 arrest due to violence. 2005 assulting a police officer and 2007 domestic violence and had a restraining order taken out on him by an x girlfriend. So he has a violent history and a pattern of violence. Is this the type of person you want walking around your neighborhood?

This piece of shit needs to be locked up for a long long time period

Martin, on the other hand, had no criminal history or arrest, but is now being painted as some thug? This ****ing world is losing its mind.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;904603]Didnt know this until this morning, Zimmerman has had 2 arrest due to violence. 2005 assulting a police officer and 2007 domestic violence and had a restraining order taken out on him by an x girlfriend. So he has a violent history and a pattern of violence. Is this the type of person you want walking around your neighborhood?

This piece of shit needs to be locked up for a long long time period

Martin, on the other hand, had no criminal history or arrest, but is now being painted as some thug? This ****ing world is losing its mind.[/quote]

You left out that he also had a restrainorder on his girlfriend taken out on her. He was also not charged with any crime. They also dropped those charges of assulting a cop. This is just an attack on his character to distract from the real facts in the case.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Again, historical attributes are circumstantial at best. Do I want him patrolling my neighborhood? Nope and certainly don't want him doing so armed - hell, I don't want [I]anyone[/I] other than the police to be armed as they stroll down my street. Does the past history prove he is guilty of instigating a physical altercation and murdering someone in the instant case? Nope.

As RR said, and as you intimate, strip all the characterizations away from [I]both[/I] Zimmerman and Martin. Look at the facts of the incident and nothing else:

Guy A followed Guy B and a conversation took place between them. At some point a physical altercation between Guy A and Guy B took place. Both Guy A and Guy B had a legal right to be where the physical altercation took place. No one witnessed the beginning of the physical altercation and it is unknown who started or what was the immediate cause of the physical altercation. During the physical altercation, Guy A shot Guy B. Guy A had the legal right to carry a gun. Guy A was injured in the altercation and, at one point, Guy B was observed on top of and beating Guy B. When questioned, Guy A asserted self-defense in fear of life and limb and no witnesses exist to dispute Guy A's assertion.

We can speculate endlessly as to the thought processes of either these guys but, as a society, we can (and should) only punish for the actions taken based on credible evidence. From the facts [I]of the incident[/I], I don't even think you have a manslaughter case under the relevant Florida statutes.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Great post, JoeRedskin.

The only issue I have is the assertion that both had a legal reason to be where they were. I still don't understand why Martin was in a gated community that he didn't live in with his drink and snack he would have purchased elsewhere.

And I'm not saying that's cause for gun play or more than a finger wag.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904617]Again, historical attributes are circumstantial at best. Do I want him patrolling my neighborhood? Nope and certainly don't want him doing so armed - hell, I don't want [I]anyone[/I] other than the police to be armed as they stroll down my street. Does the past history prove he is guilty of instigating a physical altercation and murdering someone in the instant case? Nope.

As RR said, and as you intimate, strip all the characterizations away from [I]both[/I] Zimmerman and Martin. Look at the facts of the incident and nothing else:

Guy A followed Guy B and a conversation took place between them. At some point a physical altercation between Guy A and Guy B took place. Both Guy A and Guy B had a legal right to be where the physical altercation took place. No one witnessed the beginning of the physical altercation and it is unknown who started or what was the immediate cause of the physical altercation. During the physical altercation, Guy A shot Guy B. Guy A had the legal right to carry a gun. Guy A was injured in the altercation and, at one point, Guy B was observed on top of and beating Guy B. When questioned, Guy A asserted self-defense in fear of life and limb and no witnesses exist to dispute Guy A's assertion.

We can speculate endlessly as to the thought processes of either these guys but, as a society, we can (and should) only punish for the actions taken based on credible evidence. From the facts [I]of the incident[/I], I don't even think you have a manslaughter case under the relevant Florida statutes.[/quote]

You should be a lawyer. Great post.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

this neighborhood watch guy is the ultimate piece of shit. He's in the wrong no question whether the law says so or not, i could careless. He's the typical piece of shit that has nothing better to do than walk around with a gun, bully people, wishing he had some authority over people. He is the reason we need tougher gun laws, b/c people like this with a criminal history such as his shouldnt have guns.

He finally got what which he shoulda got a lonnnnnnggggggggggggg time ago, a good ass whipping. Please believe me, if i was Martin's age and I had some f*cking nut following me around, acting like he was gonna rob or abduct me- I woulda leveled the guy too.

There is justice being served right now by the public and Zimmerman better pray he's charged. Cause he's not gonna be able to set foot in public again in the state of Florida. He better watch his damn back.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Way to go Spike....sigh

[url=http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/spike_lee_george_zimmerman_address_twitter_trayvon_martin.html]Spike Lee tweets wrong address of Trayvon Martin's shooter; elderly couple flees after threats | syracuse.com[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;904623]this neighborhood watch guy is the ultimate piece of shit. He's in the wrong no question whether the law says so or not, i could careless. He's the typical piece of shit that has nothing better to do than walk around with a gun, bully people, wishing he had some authority over people. He is the reason we need tougher gun laws, b/c people like this with a criminal history such as his shouldnt have guns.

He finally got what which he shoulda got a lonnnnnnggggggggggggg time ago, a good ass whipping. Please believe me, if i was Martin's age and I had some f*cking nut following me around, acting like he was gonna rob or abduct me- I woulda leveled the guy too.

There is justice being served right now by the public and Zimmerman better pray he's charged. Cause he's not gonna be able to set foot in public again in the state of Florida. He better watch his damn back.[/quote]

<sigh> Bring on the pitch forks and lynch mobs. Damn the facts and law. Justice is malleable and means only what popular opinion says it is.

[B]A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS[/B]

WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;904623]He's in the wrong no question whether the law says so or not, i could careless.[/quote]

Wow.......

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=SmootSmack;904626]Way to go Spike....sigh

[URL="http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/spike_lee_george_zimmerman_address_twitter_trayvon_martin.html"]Spike Lee tweets wrong address of Trayvon Martin's shooter; elderly couple flees after threats | syracuse.com[/URL][/quote]

Posted by mlmpetert yesterday at 03-27-2012, 11:35 AM but thanks for the reminder.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;904535]I havent seen the movie since 8th grade english class but diddnt johnny boy stright up murder at least one of socs?[/quote]no, just one in legitimate self defense

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904634]<sigh> Bring on the pitch forks and lynch mobs. Damn the facts and law. Justice is malleable and means only what popular opinion says it is.

[B]A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS[/B]

WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake![/quote]

the law is always right??? History says no. facts are facts i agree, a man with a gun roaming a neighborhood (to protect everyone right?) harrassing children subjectively to what fit his discription of the common criminal (black in hoodie). He finds his discription, his direct harrassment leads to a physical altercation that leads to the death of a child with tea and skittles. Justice served right? i find it strange he has the right under law to shoot children.

Let me go home and grab my handgun and roam peoples neighborhood randomly and question children. if i dont get the answer i like and a child starts actingly like a child, then damn it i have the right to pull out my gun and shoot them. this country is great.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=los panda;904643]no, just one in legitimate self defense[/quote]

Coincidentally i was thinking about that movie about a week ago and looked it up on netflix but they didnt have it streaming. It probably wont live up to what i remember, but i think im gonna have to buy it now.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;904665]Coincidentally i was thinking about that movie about a week ago and looked it up on netflix but they didnt have it streaming. It probably wont live up to what i remember, but i think im gonna have to buy it now.[/quote]i bought it when i bought the book, it was $6. cheaper than the book. it will let you down, but it's still the outsiders

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

i heard Trayvon's mom say this yesterday at a news conference. I honestly didt see this as a racial issue at all. I think i may be waaayyyy to naive when it comes to this kind of stuff.

"[B]They [/B]killed my son and now [B]they're[/B] trying to kill his reputation."

Read more: [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html#ixzz1qQoI0yOr]Trayvon Martin case: He was suspended three times and caught with 'burglary tool' | Mail Online[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;904621]You should be a lawyer. Great post.[/quote]

:laughing-

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=los panda;904667]i bought it when i bought the book, [B]it was $6. cheaper than the book[/B]. it will let you down, but it's still the outsiders[/quote]


Thank God i dont read!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;904645]the law is always right??? History says no. facts are facts i agree, a man with a gun roaming a neighborhood (to protect everyone right?) harrassing children subjectively to what fit his discription of the common criminal (black in hoodie). He finds his discription, his direct harrassment leads to a physical altercation that leads to the death of a child with tea and skittles. Justice served right? i find it strange he has the right under law to shoot children.

Let me go home and grab my handgun and roam peoples neighborhood randomly and question children. if i dont get the answer i like and a child starts actingly like a child, then damn it i have the right to pull out my gun and shoot them. this country is great.[/quote]

Introducing Chico2321 - the new and improved rant.

The law is neither right nor wrong. It's application sometimes leads to unfair or unsatisfactory results. When the application of a law results in unfair or unsatisfactory results often enough - it gets changed by the society subject to it. Until it is changed, however, the law is the guideline we are bound to follow b/c it's what, we as a society, originally agreed to follow.

As to you emotionally based, factually debatable rant - - If the child attacks you, breaks your nose, starts bashing your head into a sidewalk causing you legitimate fear for your life b/c you [I]said[/I] something that offended him and you have a legally authorized deadly weapon, guess what - you have every right to use it. That ain't anything new.

At the same time, under those facts and in Maryland, you would likely be arrested. In Florida, however, as long as no evidence contradicts your claim of self-defense, guess what? You are legally arrest proof. Do I think that's a bad law? I think it's overbroad and creates this type of situation where what was once a defense to be proved is now a presumptive defense. I think [I]that[/I] part of the law should be modified but it ain't up to me (or you) - it's up to the good people of Florida. Don't like the law? Don't live in Florida.

You make lots of assumptions both about Zimmerman, about Martin and about what happened. If that is all it takes to convict someone of murder, well, I got the rope if you got the tree.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;904645]the law is always right??? History says no. facts are facts i agree, a man with a gun roaming a neighborhood (to protect everyone right?) harrassing children subjectively to what fit his discription of the common criminal (black in hoodie). He finds his discription, his direct harrassment leads to a physical altercation that leads to the death of a child with tea and skittles. Justice served right? i find it strange he has the right under law to shoot children.

Let me go home and grab my handgun and roam peoples neighborhood randomly and question children. if i dont get the answer i like and a child starts actingly like a child, then damn it i have the right to pull out my gun and shoot them. this country is great.[/quote]

I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;904620]Great post, JoeRedskin.

The only issue I have is the assertion that both had a legal reason to be where they were. I still don't understand why Martin was in a gated community that he didn't live in with his drink and snack he would have purchased elsewhere.[/quote]

I read the community was where his father's friend lived. They were visiting that friend when he went to get the snack.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=drew54;904675]I read the community was where his father's friend lived. They were visiting that friend when he went to get the snack.[/quote]

[I]If evidence of Trayvon’s 911 call really does exist, it would blow apart Zimmerman’s claims that he acted in self defense when he shot and killed the Miami Gardens teenager [B]who was trying to make it [/B][/I][U][B]back home[/B][/U][I][B], with a bag of candy and a drink, in time to watch the 2nd half of the NBA All Star game.[/B][/I]

I'm hearing all kinds of differing opinions on where Martin was heading and why.

It seems odd that if you're visiting a friend (or a friend of someone else) you'd go looking for snacks. At some point it will be apparent where he was walking to/from and all will be clearer, hopefully.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mooby;904673]I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.[/quote]


Doesn't fit the narrative of racial hostility.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mooby;904673]I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.[/quote]

It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in [I]reasonable[/I] fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon [I]no choice but to resort to physical violence [/I](pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), [I]then[/I] Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs [I]can never[/I] be wrong.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904682]It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in [I]reasonable[/I] fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon [I]no choice but to resort to physical violence [/I](pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), [I]then[/I] Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs [I]can never[/I] be wrong.[/quote]

I'm not saying it makes a difference in the case, it just makes it sound like he's trying to garner sympathy for the teenager. And if that's his MO, then w/e.

But I do agree with you when you look at it from the standpoint you laid out above, it's hard to throw charges at Zimmerman from the facts at hand. It's like you said though, facts shouldn't get in the way of emotion. :)

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904671]Introducing Chico2321 - the new and improved rant.

The law is neither right nor wrong. It's application sometimes leads to unfair or unsatisfactory results. When the application of a law results in unfair or unsatisfactory results often enough - it gets changed by the society subject to it. Until it is changed, however, the law is the guideline we are bound to follow b/c it's what, we as a society, originally agreed to follow.

[B]As to you emotionally based, factually debatable rant [/B]- - If the child attacks you, breaks your nose, starts bashing your head into a sidewalk causing you legitimate fear for your life b/c you [I]said[/I] something that offended him and you have a legally authorized deadly weapon, guess what - you have every right to use it. That ain't anything new.

At the same time, under those facts and in Maryland, you would likely be arrested. In Florida, however, as long as no evidence contradicts your claim of self-defense, guess what? You are legally arrest proof. Do I think that's a bad law? I think it's overbroad and creates this type of situation where what was once a defense to be proved is now a presumptive defense. I think [I]that[/I] part of the law should be modified but it ain't up to me (or you) - it's up to the good people of Florida. Don't like the law? Don't live in Florida.

You make lots of assumptions both about Zimmerman, about Martin and about what happened. If that is all it takes to convict someone of murder, well, I got the rope if you got the tree.[/quote]

its not emotional but certainly disagrees with interpretation of law. But by your assessment you support law that say you can kill a child if you fear for his your life after chasing down, after harrassing him. Which is fine. Wasnt Zimmerman told by someone not to go after him...blotchy on that. And i guess people who disagree with that interpretation are a lynch mob, which is common but expected.

Zimmerman is responsible for the child's death. And Martin was harrassed by an unknown person to him not of any authority but some joe on the street. Who knows what Zim said to him, but i guess he can say anything he wants to him considering he's packing a gun like a damn coward.

Zimmerman was clearly in the wrong and Martin did not deserved to be killed. Gotta be a law that was broken somewhere.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904682]It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in [I]reasonable[/I] fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon [I]no choice but to resort to physical violence [/I](pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), [I]then[/I] Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

[B]Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit.[/B] If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs [I]can never[/I] be wrong.[/quote]

I can walk the street with a gun harrassing people? Ummm no